when you're swapping BTC for CC through the 2wp aren't you effectively "shorting" BTC and going "long" CC?

No it's all Bitcoin if I understand the counter argument, you can change back 1:1 any time (or 1:10 and 10:1)

Yes if you see value in CC. But as one SC proponent points out there won't be value there at least not with TC - apparently one should consider it a scam even it it does everything it says on the box, so it's not a good test case for SC.

every time you trade your USD for BTC, you're effectively shorting USD and going long BTC. seems like the same here.

seems like the peg only guarantees value for BTC<-->scBTC

The way I read it:The scBTC is a token for BTC in the meaningful sense of the word token. To the extent that CC is a sort of digitally divisible token wallet, and it carries the scBTC, it isn't really shorting BTC. It is more of a coin within a coin, or more accurately a token for a coin within a digitally divisible crypto coin that acts as a wallet for scBTC. (if that makes any sense at all)To the extent that CC is diluted however, it is shorting BTC.

“Bitcoin is two things, right? Bitcoin is a currency and it is a way to create a network. And the two today aren’t associated. People (ask): ‘Are you going to accept the coin?’ And the answer is, we’ll think about it when our clients actually want to use it. So when we have banks and merchants saying ‘Hey, our clients really want to pay in Bitcoin,’ then it becomes a meaningful question for us to answer. Until then, it is just theoretical would we do it, and we have – I forget a couple of hundred currencies or 170 currencies that we do business in. If we chose another one, we can certainly do that.”

The VISA CEO's willful ignorance aside, I'm seeing more people come out in defense of blockchain/currency inseparability lately, and some people who previously thought incorrectly on this issue are turning around. Hopefully that trend continues.

Granted in a different context, but I'm reminded of the Hive-wallet Founder/CEO's insufferable insistence on using the term "token" instead of money or coin. He has a backwards and obnoxious philosophical position on the nature of crypto money, and it influences their business decisions. I, for one, will never touch HiveWallet, as that company's existence, given their philosophy, is a net negative to the bitcoin ecosystem.

We at Hive agree that so-called crypto-currency is not money...We of Earth love our novelty, and I in particular find the idea of artificial digital scarcity so painfully fucking boring that I'm going to spend my time making your world view more difficult to sustain, as both a career and a hobby.

Dont u get VISA position? If is separable who runs the servers secure the chain? VISA of course. And they'll charge 2 to 5 pct per txn for the service. TBH a blockchain backend would be a lot better than a sql db to store financial txns... so it is not all bad.

when you're swapping BTC for CC through the 2wp aren't you effectively "shorting" BTC and going "long" CC?

No it's all Bitcoin if I understand the counter argument, you can change back 1:1 any time (or 1:10 and 10:1)

Yes if you see value in CC. But as one SC proponent points out there won't be value there at least not with TC - apparently one should consider it a scam even it it does everything it says on the box, so it's not a good test case for SC.

every time you trade your USD for BTC, you're effectively shorting USD and going long BTC. seems like the same here.

seems like the peg only guarantees value for BTC<-->scBTC

The way I read it:The scBTC is a token for BTC in the meaningful sense of the word token. To the extent that CC is a sort of digitally divisible token wallet, and it carries the scBTC, it isn't really shorting BTC. It is more of a coin within a coin, or more accurately a token for a coin within a digitally divisible crypto coin that acts as a wallet for scBTC. (if that makes any sense at all)To the extent that CC is diluted however, it is shorting BTC.

Extra credit if you can distill that into 140 characters.

I see it the same way, but in addition, to the extent to which there is a reserve, a constant value created in theTC ecosystem where the BTC never comes out, is a short on BTC.

We at Hive agree that so-called crypto-currency is not money...We of Earth love our novelty, and I in particular find the idea of artificial digital scarcity so painfully fucking boring that I'm going to spend my time making your world view more difficult to sustain, as both a career and a hobby.

Thanks for posting that quote.

I saw it the first time around, but didn't bookmark or otherwise save the link.

I was looking for it recently because I wanted to show somebody what a douchebag that guy is and why never to use their wallet.

We at Hive agree that so-called crypto-currency is not money...We of Earth love our novelty, and I in particular find the idea of artificial digital scarcity so painfully fucking boring that I'm going to spend my time making your world view more difficult to sustain, as both a career and a hobby.

Thanks for posting that quote.

I saw it the first time around, but didn't bookmark or otherwise save the link.

I was looking for it recently because I wanted to show somebody what a douchebag that guy is and why never to use their wallet.

Well, I mean, the unfortunate part is that I simply followed it as a curiosity, and not not so much as like oh well this is a great investment opportunity. ...So I missed an opportunity to be one of those guys who like, you know, 300,000+ or what have you. But...I, you know, just didn't have the vision, I suppose, to see that it would really become something real.

[3:25] I didn't think for a minute that it would actually be successful.

There it is... No matter what he's consciously/sub-consciously convinced himself in the last 5 years about whether or not bitcoin deserves to have most of the crypto value, the fact that he so thoroughly missed the boat has gotta eat at him. He was one of the few lucky enough to be on Metz-Dowd in 2009 and actually see the discussion as it happened. He had the technical know-how and intellectual curiosity to appreciate it. Yet he didn't act. He could've been set for life. He's an entrepreneur - he could've self-funded whatever projects truly interested him... Or he could've launched his own fund... The scale of that regret has got to bother him, so he's constructed this weird belief system to negate it. It probably happened slowly and sub-consciously over time, which means it's really ingrained.

It's funny, I got the sense from his response to me that he was fighting another battle, and was pissed about something else. That sentence of his where he f-bombed was just too needlessly aggressive and vengeful to make any sense in context. Now I understand him a little better.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius

I'd like to see a video targeted towards left-leaning people that argues from their world-view-- why the existing monetary system is unfair and benefits a rich elite at the expense of the working masses. How Bitcoin can change that and be a People-Powered money, backed not by empty promises from rich bankers but by the strength and trust of the person-to-person Bitcoin Community. How friends and neighbors using Bitcoin can keep money in local communities. How using Bitcoin lets you interact with people all over the world, promoting peace and understanding. How it is better for the environment than gold mining or trucking coins and cash to and from stores and banks.

Well, I think that's what someone called "narratives".

We still need a narrative for anonymity, though.

i think the anonymity part of BTC should be downplayed. sure its a symbol for the geek network as well as the illegal trade folks but won't be for the masses who are the critical part of this acceptance equation. the best way to think of how BTC will be used in the future is to study M-Pesa in Kenya and why it took off like a rocket shot. those ppl just needed an easy, inexpensive way to move money around the country w/o physically delivering it like they had been (donkey ride cross country) forced to do b/c of theft. they don't care that Safaricom/Vodafone knows their identity when sending money; they just want to get the money to family and friends. most of BTC use will be this way.

Dont u get VISA position? If is separable who runs the servers secure the chain? VISA of course. And they'll charge 2 to 5 pct per txn for the service. TBH a blockchain backend would be a lot better than a sql db to store financial txns... so it is not all bad.

Financial transaction DBs aren't typically SQL and are more often journaling DBs like the block chain already, but without PoW as they trust their systems.

Dont u get VISA position? If is separable who runs the servers secure the chain? VISA of course. And they'll charge 2 to 5 pct per txn for the service. TBH a blockchain backend would be a lot better than a sql db to store financial txns... so it is not all bad.

Financial transaction DBs aren't typically SQL and are more often journaling DBs like the block chain already, but without PoW as they trust their systems.

You can have journaling with SQL I think. But the point is not so much the POW but the key signing required to change an account balance. With journaling you can use the journal to trace the fraud provided you notice it. With blockchain you stop it from happening in the first place.

Dont u get VISA position? If is separable who runs the servers secure the chain? VISA of course. And they'll charge 2 to 5 pct per txn for the service. TBH a blockchain backend would be a lot better than a sql db to store financial txns... so it is not all bad.

Financial transaction DBs aren't typically SQL and are more often journaling DBs like the block chain already, but without PoW as they trust their systems.

You can have journaling with SQL I think. But the point is not so much the POW but the key signing required to change an account balance. With journaling you can use the journal to trace the fraud provided you notice it. With blockchain you stop it from happening in the first place.

Consider whether the banks make more money by not forcing themselves to be honest?

This isn't a problem they are looking to fix. That we are proving that it can be fixed, and have done so, has not gone without notice.You should understand the reason behind all this weird and often useless regulation efforts.

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

If bitcoin can easily just be moved into these sidechain then won't they still have the exact same value as before? Lets say 1 btc = 100 scBtc. When miners are rewarded 1 btc, it'll always been worth at least whatever 100 scBtc is worth because it could just be easily moved to that chain at any time? So I don't understand how value itself would be siphoned from bitcoin since you could easily use the bitcoin to buy value from any chain you wish?

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

I don't see this assumption. The assumption is that the ledger can be extended. BTC are locked, creating an entry on a subledger. Only by proving the validity of the subledger can the BTC be unlocked. I don't see how this breaks Bitcoin as money.

Quote

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

Centralized entities have no need for a SPV proof, the federated model using m-of-n bitcoin addresses will work just fine for them. BTW, this is still a SC under the definitions given in the paper, and it can be done today.

Quote

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

The only way "all the bitcoin" will move to a sidechain is if the sidechain is obviously better than BTC. If that's the case, why not upgrade? Your BTC will be convertible. I see no losers here.

If "all the bitcoin" move to many sidechains, BTC is still needed as the backbone to move between the different sidechains. That's where the fees will come in, and maintaining a limited block size will ensure they are high enough.

Quote

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

I don't think you understand their business model very well. The have an obligation to profit, yes. But their business is developing new capabilities by extending the Bitcoin platform. In order to continue offering services extending the Bitcoin platform, they have to ensure the Bitcoin platform remains viable. A dairy farmer doesn't eat his cattle.

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

If bitcoin can easily just be moved into these sidechain then won't they still have the exact same value as before? Lets say 1 btc = 100 scBtc. When miners are rewarded 1 btc, it'll always been worth at least whatever 100 scBtc is worth because it could just be easily moved to that chain at any time? So I don't understand how value itself would be siphoned from bitcoin since you could easily use the bitcoin to buy value from any chain you wish?

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges. their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess. but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it. they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

If bitcoin can easily just be moved into these sidechain then won't they still have the exact same value as before? Lets say 1 btc = 100 scBtc. When miners are rewarded 1 btc, it'll always been worth at least whatever 100 scBtc is worth because it could just be easily moved to that chain at any time? So I don't understand how value itself would be siphoned from bitcoin since you could easily use the bitcoin to buy value from any chain you wish?

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges. their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess. but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it. they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

Won't the free market take those things into account making scBtc less valuable and higher risk? And those who stayed in btc have their value rise?

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

If bitcoin can easily just be moved into these sidechain then won't they still have the exact same value as before? Lets say 1 btc = 100 scBtc. When miners are rewarded 1 btc, it'll always been worth at least whatever 100 scBtc is worth because it could just be easily moved to that chain at any time? So I don't understand how value itself would be siphoned from bitcoin since you could easily use the bitcoin to buy value from any chain you wish?

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges. their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess. but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it. they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

Again, SPV proofs are only needed for decentralized sidechains. These will be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors.

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

If bitcoin can easily just be moved into these sidechain then won't they still have the exact same value as before? Lets say 1 btc = 100 scBtc. When miners are rewarded 1 btc, it'll always been worth at least whatever 100 scBtc is worth because it could just be easily moved to that chain at any time? So I don't understand how value itself would be siphoned from bitcoin since you could easily use the bitcoin to buy value from any chain you wish?

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges. their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess. but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it. they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

Won't the free market take those things into account making scBtc less valuable and higher risk? And those who stayed in btc have their value rise?

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

If bitcoin can easily just be moved into these sidechain then won't they still have the exact same value as before? Lets say 1 btc = 100 scBtc. When miners are rewarded 1 btc, it'll always been worth at least whatever 100 scBtc is worth because it could just be easily moved to that chain at any time? So I don't understand how value itself would be siphoned from bitcoin since you could easily use the bitcoin to buy value from any chain you wish?

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges. their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess. but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it. they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

You are talking of a case where : market cap of [BTC pre Sidechain release] = market cap of [BTC chain + SC]Then indeed value will flow from a secure chain to a less secure chain which will undermine the whole system.

But the purpose of SC is to create value, so we can expect that:Market cap of [BTC chain + SC] > market cap of [BTC pre Sidechain release] Where the delta of the total value doesn't come from a zero sum game between BTC and SC, but from a positive sum game where value is added because of new SC's features.

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

I don't see this assumption. The assumption is that the ledger can be extended. BTC are locked, creating an entry on a subledger. Only by proving the validity of the subledger can the BTC be unlocked. I don't see how this breaks Bitcoin as money.

SC's only work in theory if they can be confined to "utility" chains as brg444 has defined them, ie, SC's w/o an altcoin that just processes tx's with enhanced features like fast tx or anon. but since these utility chains won't make money for their devs, and IF no other speculative SC's will be formed, then you don't need a Blockstream for profit would you?

Quote

Quote

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

Centralized entities have no need for a SPV proof, the federated model using m-of-n bitcoin addresses will work just fine for them. BTW, this is still a SC under the definitions given in the paper, and it can be done today.

i'm perfectly aware of that. but centralized entities encourage usage of the SPVproof, as brg444 and the whitepaper have already suggested, as they are more secure (MM) and they are decentralized. we've already seen this incentive live with the Truthcoin example.

Quote

Quote

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

The only way "all the bitcoin" will move to a sidechain is if the sidechain is obviously better than BTC. If that's the case, why not upgrade? Your BTC will be convertible. I see no losers here.

converting is highly risky. especially to those who don't pay attention to Bitcointalk or Reddit on a regular basis. this was the exact reason the proposal to harvest "supposedly" inactive address balances has been shot down many times. it's risky and unnecessary to force a widespread migration to an improved SC.

Quote

Quote

If "all the bitcoin" move to many sidechains, BTC is still needed as the backbone to move between the different sidechains. That's where the fees will come in, and maintaining a limited block size will ensure they are high enough.

no, we've already learned that scBTC can move btwn other SC's. they don't "ever" have to come back to MC.

Quote

Quote

Blockstream has every incentive to encourage this siphoning process. as a for profit beholden to investors, not only do they have an incentive, they have an obligation.

I don't think you understand their business model very well. The have an obligation to profit, yes. But their business is developing new capabilities by extending the Bitcoin platform. In order to continue offering services extending the Bitcoin platform, they have to ensure the Bitcoin platform remains viable. A dairy farmer doesn't eat his cattle.

i understand it completely. it's conflicted and it may not even be intentional.

think about it. it's only realistic that utility chains can be MM'd. that's b/c the data requirement and work involved would be too much to MM ALL SC's in existence which will be in the thousand/billions. therefore, MM will be confined to perhaps 2 utility chains that make Bitcoin better as money, fast tx and anon debatedly.

all other speculative SC ledgers will be maintained by their owners. owners who have paid Blockstream good money (USD's) to construct their SC. they will be less secure as they won't be mined by third party independent mining auditors ala Bitcoin miners. the only way for these types of SC entities survive is by attracting BTC to their scBTC. the more the better. the more retention the better. this take tx fees away from Bitcoin miners which is bad. the Blockstream biz model depends on this siphoning of BTC -->scBTC for the survival of their clients. otherwise they don't make money.